The head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has reposted a prediction market wager on a possible DOJ prosecution.
Dhillon reposted an X post from prediction market Polymarket promoting 36% odds on journalist Don Lemon being prosecuted by the DOJ, writing: “Three now arrested.” This comes after a federal judge found no probable cause of Lemon committing a crime, following the Trump administration indicting three demonstrators at a Minnesota protest that the journalist was covering.
The head of Trump DOJ’s Civil Rights Division boosts prediction markets placing 36% odds she’ll be able to prosecute Don Lemon for his journalism, after a federal magistrate judge found no probable cause of a crime. pic.twitter.com/qxjMvrL1NE
— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 22, 2026
The seemingly now-deleted post from Dhillon was shared again via screenshot by All Rise News editor Alan Klasfeld, who wrote: “The head of Trump DOJ’s Civil Rights Division boosts prediction markets placing 36% odds she’ll be able to prosecute Don Lemon for his journalism, after a federal magistrate judge found no probable cause of a crime.”
Prediction market insider trading fears flare again, this time in the DOJ
Dhillon’s post has sparked renewed concern that those in positions of power could influence prediction market odds, just a few weeks on from insider trading fears arising on Polymarket following the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. An anonymous user made over $400,000 on a bet that Maduro would be replaced on the very same day that the Trump administration moved against him.
This led to 30 Congress members supporting a bill to prevent insider trading on prediction markets like Polymarket. With wagers available not just on political events but also business and cultural ones, there is currently room for people to affect the very bets that they’re also allowed to place. Kalshi’s own CEO, Tarek Mansour, also shared support for the bill which would ban government officials from using the platforms.
The concern is that those who should be making impartial decisions based on American laws of justice could be motivated for other reasons if they stand to gain financially from the outcomes.
Featured image: Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
